Without intending to tell you how to use this software, no, that's not what Quote is for, although you could use it to that effect.
Yeah, that's what I meant.
The top line of each post starting with "Re: Username" indicates whom you're replying to; you can click that Username to see exactly which post was replied to. You select that the way DK outlined.
That was news to me. Thanks guys(?).
The quote option allows you to focus on a specific part of the post you're responding to.
Yes it does. Like I'm doing now.
To someone who expects such a focus, quoting an entire post is superfluous and confusing.
I agree that it's frequently superfluous, as some use it. ...but confusing? I think it's helpful to see at a glance, right there, which post someone is making specific comments about. I've already read the post in most cases, but it's more convenient than backing up (as I used to do) or clicking on the replied to link, as I now am aware of. What it allows me to do is what I'm doing now. It helps me to remember the specific points I wanted to respond to, and it permits me to do so with less typing, although more "formatting". (I don't have to write, "And as to your point about...." I say that even in face-to-face conversations if I'm responding to more than the very last thing the other person said.)
Here's where the
Quote + function is useful. No one commented on that. Is that available in this software package?
To the extent that some threads can be likened to discussions, wouldn't it be odd, in normal conversation, to have to indicate to whom you were talking by parroting their words back at them before being able to express your own thoughts?
Yes, very odd. But this is in no way equivalent to face-to-face conversation. I think one of my points above covers the way I think of this.
In normal conversation, you turn and make eye contact with the person at whom your expression is directed. Think of a reply to a specific poster as the online equivalent of that.
I see what you mean, but I wouldn't use the E word.
... we're using UBB.threads software and are unlikely to switch any time soon, so continued discussion of this issue falls more into the realm of philosophical debate than Forums feedback, and thus really belongs in the Lounge.
Ok, so I'm interpreting here... These points are not issues of options within this software package, as I thought they might be, but rather consequences of which software package is chosen. As such, you are certainly correct that this line of discussion (I plan on this being my last contribution to it) diverges into Lounge material, rather than feedback on the features that are possible here.
I was operating under the belief (arrived at by observation on another forum) that "threaded mode" was an option, and that even individual users could choose "flat mode" or perhaps some other option. Apparently not. So, I conclude that the answer to my first question as to the advantages of threaded mode is really that it's a choice, a preference. N'est pas?